The Celebrity California UCLA Medical Center Scandal: Snooping on Celeb Records
A serious breach of doctor-patient confidentiality has occurred within the California Department of Public Health. Sources establish that there are now 127 UCLA Medical Center employees who have made less-than-innocent peeks at celebrity medical profiles. This is one of the most controversial medical scandals in recent history, and the news is only now starting to heat up. While this issue has only bubbled to the surface now, the California Department of Public Health has cited similar occurrences from as way back as January 2004. They are also hinting that there may be other undetected cases prior to 2004 and others they are currently investigating right now.
Initially, only 67 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center employees were associated with this behavior. However, recent investigations prove that the number is actually almost double that.
Naturally, the UCLA Medical Center is not taking this news in stride. Moved to action with an increasingly disapproving public, administrators have already made several internal memos to employees that the center is undergoing a major crack-down on these “peeping-tom” perpetrators who not only have viewed sensitive information about these celebrities but have also sent this supposedly private information (which includes medical history and known ailments) to friends, family, and the media.
This scandal began in the middle of April of 2008 year by the actions of two nurses and an emergency room technician. The three logged onto the medical center’s computer database on various occasions to find out details about various “well-known individuals” and their medical records captured in this database. When the police investigation started, more and more employees were added to this original list of those who not only gained improper access to medical records but then also revealed this information to friends and family. At this point, the list balloons to an astounding 127 involved in this highly unethical behavior, ultimately breaching doctor-patient confidentiality.
What Is Doctor-Patient Confidentiality?
Although patient-doctor confidentiality is often cited as a law, it is considered more of a code of ethics for medical practitioners. This practice is taken by physicians as part of the Hippocratic Oath, wherein an individual’s affliction or medical state is never released to the general public without a written court order. This is, of course, done for the benefit of the patient.
This careful handling of information centers itself usually around the doctor, the patient and the patient’s immediate family. In some extreme cases, the patient in question may even ask the doctor to restrict the information further from his or her immediately family – this is perfectly allowable. The reason why doctor-patient confidentiality is so highly treasured is because this practice is a way of easing the mental strain of patients who may have issues about (what they may consider as embarrassing) medical conditions.
Subpoenaing medical records is not a light matter. Even in extremely difficult litigation or divorce cases, medical records are often off-limits. When medical records are actually subpoenaed, each state has varying degrees as to the amount of information that can be leaked for the interested parties.
Legal privilege is defined as the right to withhold evidence (which can include medical records such as diagnosis, treatments and follow through procedures) from the attention of the general public. The doctor-patient privilege also extends itself to prevent those who have had “special relationships” with the patient from divulging any facts pertaining to the said person’s health conditions.
The term “special relationships” can be tricky, as these involve a lot of people. This can be a conference between attorney and patient; family members and patient; guardian and their wards; priest (confessor or confidants and patient; and of course: doctor and patient.
However, there are also disclosure laws wherein patients are required to release medical conditions voluntarily. A good example of this would be the State of California, in which case any patients undergoing psychiatric and/or psychotherapeutic care must waive their doctor-patient confidentiality rights in the event that they become involved in civil lawsuits. This is evidenced in Section 1016 of the Evidence Rules.
Psychiatrists and psychotherapists also have the right to withhold vital medical records. This is in case the medical practitioner feels that the release of such information will damage the patient’s mental health further. This is evidenced in H&S Section 1795.12 and Section 1795.14.
Key Points About Doctor-Patient Confidentiality
- The confidentiality issue only governs a relationship between a doctor and his or her patient that is being treated currently or has been treated sometime in the past. All information gathered between conferences (consultations, examinations, treatments and follow-throughs) whether in person or not, is considered confidential.
- Different states have different interpretations of doctor-patient confidentiality and doctor-patient privilege.
- The confidentiality issue should continue even if the patient switches to another medical practitioner, or stops consulting the doctor altogether.
- Depending on the situation, a doctor may disclose facts about a patient’s personal information, but only under very limited instances.
Celebrity Medical Scandal Extends to Social Security Numbers
This scandal has certainly taken a toll on some of the more famous patrons of UCLA Medical Center. According to the investigations being held by the California Department of Public Health, the medical records of known media personalities such as actress Farrah Fawcett, California’s first lady Maria Shriver, and pop singer Britney Spears have been privy to the inquisitive eyes of those under investigation.
However, the damage doesn’t end there. Some of this information viewed may have been leaked to the media – with the individuals leaking this information labeled as “reliable hospital source” in news stories – as if this was an ethical practice.
This is definitely not something the public relations department of the UCLA Medical Center wants to have to deal with. Nonetheless, the Department of Public Health blames the medical center administrators for the relatively lax security when it comes to medical records. In regards to the mid-April incident, one nurse was fired, and the other two hospital employees (the other nurse and the emergency room technician) have so far received nothing more than administrative warnings.
More recent investigations show that a former administrative specialist named Lawanda Jackson, who now faces criminal charges for violating Farrah Fawcett’s privacy, actually accessed medical documents of more than 900 patients in a span of 49 months – from April 2003 to May of last year. This employee purposefully record patients’ social security numbers – among other private data. Investigations as to how Jackson used the said information are still rather inconclusive. Records are conclusive though in the fact that hospital administration did manage to ignore various reports from other employees that some were taking advantage of this sensitive infomation. Jackson continued to work for the hospital up until the actress Fawcett filed a formal court complaint. The aftermath of this lawsuit led to the indictment of this administrative specialist on the 19th of April 2008.
Dr. David Feinberg, chief executive of the UCLA Health System, assures the remaining patrons of the hospital that the administration will be doing all it can to improve the medical center’s system security.
Do you feel that medical employees snooping on private information is a rare occurrance or does this happen more than we would like to admit?
